Okay, if there's a sense of ownership of the initial idea, I totally agree that that individual should be the one building the framework, but I don't really see the GM as much different to any other player in the sense that he or she expects to see their idea changed in the process of play, and to grow from the inputs of the other players. I don't think that a player can reasonably pitch an idea for which they then expect another person to be the GM and then think that said idea will remain true to the image in their head. In such a case it would be essential to insure that the creator and the developer were really on the same page.
It's this potential for disconnect between idea and implementation that sinks a lot of campaigns, I feel, and that's only really addressable by talking through expectations and desires before the game begins. While I have a lot of time for the GM-led campaign design I know from bitter experience it's all to easy to build a world or campaign idea up with lots of preparations that doesn't really grab the players' imaginations when it comes to the table.
'Hack and slay all the way'? Well if it ain't broke...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-09-05 11:49 am (UTC)It's this potential for disconnect between idea and implementation that sinks a lot of campaigns, I feel, and that's only really addressable by talking through expectations and desires before the game begins. While I have a lot of time for the GM-led campaign design I know from bitter experience it's all to easy to build a world or campaign idea up with lots of preparations that doesn't really grab the players' imaginations when it comes to the table.
'Hack and slay all the way'? Well if it ain't broke...
I hope your DD is thriving, by the way.